I think the best explanation is arnoldg is some sort of computer program.

Yeah, but it must be improved a lot. It just seems to pick up some words, and generates a few sentences based on it, that sound deep. However it is not able to partake in a real dialogue. Every trial in this direction is just reacted upon in the same algorithm, without any improvement.

I think we should let the programmer know he failed the Turing test miserably, and that he should refrain from further inputs here until he radically improved his program, a program worth to be called ‘arnoldg 2.0’. I would prefer he would use his own blog-Website for this, instead of misusing the CFI-Fora for this.

I think the best explanation is arnoldg is some sort of computer program.

Kinda reminds me of that “Makaj” guy who haunted the About.com Biology forum several years ago advocating Young Earth Creationism. The difference was that he/she/they were at least coherent and understandable.

When somebody exposed it for what it was, whoever was behind it quickly went away.

Signature

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Are matter, space, time the only scientific concepts for Our Existence?

Observation and Transformation interact with matter in space and time;

Causing the actuality of Our Being Here and Our Existence;

We observe change, Our understandings change, We don`t change.

You’ll understand better if you study determinism. We do change all the time. We simply have no control over how we change or what triggers the changes and we often have no awareness of the changes as they take place. http://Www.determinism.com is a good place to start.

You’ll understand better if you study determinism. We do change all the time. We simply have no control over how we change or what triggers the changes and we often have no awareness of the changes as they take place. http://Www.determinism.com is a good place to start.

Lois, please, do not feed the troll. Arnoldg is obviously not here for discussion and enlightenment. I think Stephen Lawrence nailed it: Arnoldg is a bad computer program. The account’s non-suspension is evidence the moderators around here are often too lenient with new members, even when a new member does nothing but pollute the forums with nonsense.

Signature

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

You’ll understand better if you study determinism. We do change all the time. We simply have no control over how we change or what triggers the changes and we often have no awareness of the changes as they take place. http://Www.determinism.com is a good place to start.

Lois, please, do not feed the troll. Arnoldg is obviously not here for discussion and enlightenment. I think Stephen Lawrence nailed it: Arnoldg is a bad computer program. The account’s non-suspension is evidence the moderators around here are often too lenient with new members, even when a new member does nothing but pollute the forums with nonsense.

Principal questions of ontology are “What can be said to exist?”, “Into what categories, if any, can we sort existing things?”, “What are the meanings of being?”, “What are the various modes of being of entities?”.

Parmenides and monism

Parmenides was among the first to propose an ontological characterization of the fundamental nature of existence. In his prologue or proem he describes two views of existence; initially that nothing comes from nothing, and therefore existence is eternal. Consequently our opinions about truth must often be false and deceitful. Most of western philosophy, and science - including the fundamental concepts of falsifiability and the conservation of energy - have emerged from this view. This posits that existence is what can be conceived of by thought, created, or possessed. Hence, there can be neither void nor vacuum; and true reality can neither come into being nor vanish from existence. Rather, the entirety of creation is eternal, uniform, and immutable, though not infinite (he characterized its shape as that of a perfect sphere). Parmenides thus posits that change, as perceived in everyday experience, is illusory. Everything that can be apprehended is but one part of a single entity. This idea somewhat anticipates the modern concept of an ultimate grand unification theory that finally explains all of existence in terms of one inter-related sub-atomic reality which applies to everything.

The views that “nothing comes from nothing and therefore existence is eternal” and “there can be neither void nor vacuum; and true reality can neither come into being nor vanish from existence” are crucial in his philosophy of reality.

If the ultimate reality of the universe is a single entity, then any change as observed by an observer in the universe is “illusory” (because the universe as a single entity is eternal, uniform and immutable) unless the observer is not a part of the universe observing it as a single entity, which is impossible.

However, any observer (as a part of the universe) can and do observe change as fundamental in the universe and that is not illusory.

In opposition to the classical model of change as purely accidental and illusory (as by Aristotle), process philosophy regards change as the cornerstone of reality–the cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming.